Our First Amendment rights dependent on the Second Amendment

The tragic deaths of 17 students in Parkland, Florida in February is a grim reality we must all face.

In addition to the tribulation, once again we hear the political rhetoric that guns are bad, therefore guns should be banned. The idea of keeping children safe while at school is one on which we all can agree. However, banning guns from law-abiding citizens runs contrary to a foundational principle that as Americans we have a natural right to protect ourselves — and the right to bear arms.

A month after the Parkland shooting, #MarchForOurLives protests took place across the United States. Funded by left-wing organizations, students took to the streets in anger against our current gun laws, including the Second Amendment.

While the #MarchForOurLives demonstration was bold and loud, their message was muddled and unclear. Now many are rushing to fill in the blanks, from requiring more background checks to eliminating the Second Amendment. While there may be some room for improvement in background checks, the idea of eliminating the Second Amendment is dangerous one.

In Oregon, this idea manifests itself as Oregon IP 43, which requires the registration or surrender of all “assault” weapons. Will such a mass-gun registration stop any violent crime? Of course not, but the registration of guns is not IP 43’s chief purpose.

Mass-gun registration is so the state knows who owns guns and is Step 1 of a two-step program. Step 2 is the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. If this is not the goal, then IP 43 just creates more bureaucratic busy work with no real public benefit, meddling further into our private affairs.

#MarchForOurLives was an emotional outburst at best, and a menacing movement at worst. It promoted the idea that a gun-free America will be a safer America. The Founding Fathers would abhor such a notion.

Our nation’s framers knew gun ownership by citizens protects us from the tyranny of an overly ambitious government continuously tempted to overstep its constitutional boundaries. It is not coincidental that the Second Amendment follows the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers understood that without our right and ability to protect ourselves from government, our First Amendment freedoms would soon be in jeopardy.

Therefore, it is quite ironic to protest for the elimination of the one right (Second Amendment) that protects our ability to protest government (First Amendment).

Our right to free speech, to assemble, for a free press and freedom of religion found in the First Amendment are completely dependent on the Second Amendment.

Weakening the Second Amendment concurrently weakens the first. Without the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms and form militias, our First Amendment rights are at risk of being overrun by an ever-expanding government under the guise of keeping us all safe.

A gun-free America does not guarantee a less violent America. However, it does ensure a less free one, and therefore, a less safer one.

Rep. E. Werner Reschke represents House District 56; reach him at 503-986-1456.